Lonan3 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 How are we to analyse issues as complex as climate change? The IPCC is a huge multidisciplinary attempt to get consensus on the issue. The Channel 4 documentary, and Stu and Lonan3 dismiss it as biased. But its whole purpose is trying not to be biased. I just want to point out that I have not dismiss the IPCC as biased. I have said that I'm a sceptic - and that applies to both sides of the argument. Much of the scepticism comes from a lifetime of seeing Scientific and technological wonders often that turn out to be nightmarish blunders - detergents that make dishes gleam but kill rivers, dyes that make food look good but may cause cancer, pills that make sex safe but can dangerously complicate health. Then add, DDT, cyclamates, thalidomide and oestrogen as some of the mixed blessings that leave the layman to feel that science and technology often come with hidden worms. P.S. I have, however, forgiven Newton for thinking that the sun was populated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I presume it is classified under fables and fairy stories? I was not going to reply because as far as I can see you are basically a sh1t stirrer or an idiot. I prefer to believe that it is the former and you greatly enjoy trying to wind up various contributors. Whilst I do not accept the minority point of view I fully accept the right for those that have it to question the majority scientific viewpoint. There are a few emminent people in the list which I think includes David Bellamy. What those people do when questioning is not rely on misrepresenations, old data and lies. I fully respect your right to have doubts and question the global warming & CO2 theory but to believe that a programe made by a discredicted film maker, where the majority of information on it has been easily proved to be at best dubious and where already some on it are complaining that their views were deliberately misreprsented is an "excellent programme" shows you to be blinkered almost to the point of blindness or basically just a wind up merchant. I bet you also believe the TV premium rate phone ins have been excellently run! You state elsewhere you are a scientist or engineer, although I have questioned previously as I have not seen any evidence of the logical thought processes that I would expect to see of somebody with scientific or enginnering training, if I accept that this at face value then as I say I can see no way that you can describe the programe as in any way being "excellent" unless as I say you are a sh1t stirrer of the highest order. For that I salute you although it is slightly disappointing as it does mean I will not be able to take any of your future points with any level of seriousness. Yes I agree to some extent this wasn't the best programme in the world, and several views were 'misrepresented' on the programme, just as several views have been 'misrepresented' by the IPCC report, and by politicians - and many scientists who are not convinced seem to be being ignored. However, I do not believe the debate is over, and I welcome anything that stimulates the debate - and so anything that does that is an improvement. Currently the debate is one version of bullshit versus another version of bullshit, hijacked by politicians - who will today no doubt launch a raft of proposed taxes, that in reality won't solve the problem, even if the problem actually exists. That said, there were some plain facts and analyses presented in the programme which require answering. The points we should really all be addressing here include: why the only programmes that seem to get aired are extremist view points (both views), why do the newspapers publish such gross exagerations and scare stories etc. I think there is much more to global-warming-scaremongering than meets the eye. More worrying, there is almost a religious fervour about all this - and this lack of debate shows many parallels of the conflict between science and religion which is the conflict between faith and reason. We all make a judgement on the information we receive, and I believe we are being selectively fed information. As for TV premium rate phone-ins - you will note I was pointing out what a rip-off these are 8 months ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Some slight discrepency here surely. I presume you had been on the sauce! Yes I agree to some extent this wasn't the best programme in the world, and several views were 'misrepresented' Excellent programme. You can see it here on youtube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Some slight discrepency here surely. I presume you had been on the sauce! Yes I agree to some extent this wasn't the best programme in the world, and several views were 'misrepresented' Excellent programme. You can see it here on youtube. Not at all. I read about Professor Carl Wunsch's view this morning. However, his views only formed a few minutes of an hour-long programme. I think you have your own propaganda motives here - are you an environmentalist? (i.e. were/are a member of a group/movement for instance?). If you have a true scientific background you would welcome further analysis and debate, particularly regarding the climate models that are currently being used to back the current justification for increasing taxes, which you seem to be accepting without question. A lot of people are making a lot of money out of 'global-warming' at the moment (many of the same institutions that were making a lot of money out of 'global-cooling' theory in the 70s and 80s) - and that money is coming from our pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 A lot of people are making a lot of money out of 'global-warming' at the moment (many of the same institutions that were making a lot of money out of 'global-cooling' theory in the 70s and 80s) - and that money is coming from our pockets. More unsubstanciated bollocks. Who are these 'a lot of people'? You seriously think they're anything like the number of industries who are profiting out of endevours that produce greenhouse gasses? I like David Bellamy being used in the example above. Published an article in the papers, was very quickly proved to be based on bollocks science (a single incorrect 1989 report on ice cap expansion), was kicked off the chair of various organisations and has now publicly retracted himself from the global warming debate. Great example! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Currently the debate is one version of bullshit versus another version of bullshit ... Sincere question - how do you know that? ... hijacked by politicians - who will today no doubt launch a raft of proposed taxes, that in reality won't solve the problem, even if the problem actually exists. ... and how do you know this? More worrying, there is almost a religious fervour about all this - and this lack of debate shows many parallels of the conflict between science and religion which is the conflict between faith and reason. We all make a judgement on the information we receive, and I believe we are being selectively fed information. This is more interesting - we are attempting to predict the future - this is one of the most difficult things mankind can do - below is the best attempt in existence in the world to do this. Its flawed - and scientifically wrong - but it has been put to vigourous peer review - remember in the 1970s the CO2 theorists were at the extreme - they've had to get the results, develop the theory and make that theory usefully fit with reality. The idea this hasn't been done with extreme scepticism is just so much pseudo-science. The models explain the cooling 1940-70 - in fact if you look at the below the models expected more cooling than actually occurred - and they also explain the warming 1970-now. Natural sources - volcanoes, clouds, epicycles and orbital eccenticities can't do this. And don't pretend the sun and volcano scientists haven't been trying to. These ideas aren't been generated in a bullshit in, bullshit out environment - its technical, its peer reviewed and its rigourous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Albert - you're the Man! Extrapolation - anything after the last empirical value is pure conjecture - as shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Oh FFS people - simplicities of simplicities - yes of course these models are all based on straight line extrapolations - NOT. Interest rates went up a few months ago - you can clearly see the upward trend - lets extrapolate it out into the future - it'll clearly be at 3000% by 2030 - erm no guess what futures markets exist - estimates of future economic activity, demographics, industrial output, number of cows, forested area. These things are being thought about. They produce estimates of CO2 output - there are various competing ones - wow there's a debate going on about what might happen in the future - the Channel 4 program said it was all a conspiracy created by Margaret Thatcher. And these estimates of CO2 are ADDED to all the natural cycles of sun spots, orbits and volcanoes to try to get an estimate of what the future will be like. But no - one graph showing a straight line projection shows how incorrect all this is. Fine by me - ignore the best efforts the world has made to understand its future climates and go back into your la la worlds. Clearly its simpler living there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Oh and just look at the yellow line - this assumes we reduce Carbon emissions from the current 10 Giga tonnes per year to less than 2. Currently the only way to do this is a nuclear war. This stabilizes atmospheric carbon at 450 ppm - unfortunately it takes 100s of years for the carbon cycle to naturally absorb this carbon - so it stays in the atmosphere as a green house gas (unless you know something about the properties of CO2 that nobody else in the entire world knows this is indisputable). The yellow line still gives a temperature increase that ranges from 1.5 to 2.8 degrees C - but it said so on telly just a few days ago that this is nothing to worry about, so lets not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I am not nor have I ever been an enviromentalist. I am nor ever have been a member of any such movement nor any political or government body. None of my income either arises from any of theses sources. The same applies to my immediately family and dependendents. I will admit though that I do give a small monthly charitable donation each month to WWF by standing order. Prior to commencing work I sat for a combined honours degree in chemisry and biochemistry. That was the end of my scientific training though I have taken part in several studies as a human guinea pig. I am though the only one of my immediate family who does or did not earn there income from scientific employment and my sister, father and grandfather have all been involved in various forms of research and review over the years. The latter two reqularly writing papers in scientific & non scientific journals. My grandfather also with his colleagues apart from being involved in research wrote educational books many of which to this day are still used in universities. As a youngster my Grandfather regularly involved me in his work and that of his colleagues and I was regularly involved in their various discussions. Looking back I think at the time they saw me a model of those people they were writing for if for a non scientific journal or for schools or universities and wanted feed back from a "lay person" as I would question and discuss what they wrote. To this day I remain a stubboen person. Therefore while I would not classify myself as a scientist I do believe that I was very strongly brought up with a very strong scientific back ground which has to this day effected the way I think and approach matters. Therefore yes I do welcome further analysis & debate. Science knowledge is not a static sunbect otherwise science would not evolve and advance. I also though believe that whilst that is being done there is a duty to act on and take on board the scientific thinking and evidence relevant at the time if there is potential major impact at that time, and not to wait idley byjust in case it might be revised or amended in the future. Should no action have been taken in respect to keeping infected BSE beef out of the food chain just in case the theories atthe time proved to be wrong. If it was the case that nothing was done until every bit of reasearch had been done and there was 100% consensous nothing would ever be done as scientific knowledge is ever advancing and evolving. Do we sit and wait 100 or 200 years before we ever act just so we can proof the long term effect predicted is correct? What I do not welcome is programmes such as last Thursdays from either side which basically are a complete discredit to independent documentary making which even if weighted one way or the other sgould at least be based on verifiable facts etc etc Turning to your specific points the tax issue is a complete red herring. You can argue that politicians are using the data as justification to increase taxes but it has absoultely nothing to do with the the accuracy or not of that modelling. The fact that politicians may be using the data for there own purposes does not invalidate that data. The scientists put together a model in place based on the knowledge and data in front of them . How others use it is not up to them and I doubt if many of them believe that a bit of tax hike is really the appropriate response in any case. The money making issue is again a complete red herring. There is a lot more money to be made from showing Global Warming is not man made & C02 is not partly responsible. Big industy and there supporters would love this to be the case. Even if it was shown that CO2 etc was not the cause the majority of research scientists would be unaffected as the they would still be employed etc it would just be the basis of there research that would change. The research would be concentrated on the natural causes and how to offset. As far as employment was concerned they would be unaffected. I think you have your own propaganda motives here - are you an environmentalist? (i.e. were/are a member of a group/movement for instance?). If you have a true scientific background you would welcome further analysis and debate, particularly regarding the climate models that are currently being used to back the current justification for increasing taxes, which you seem to be accepting without question. A lot of people are making a lot of money out of 'global-warming' at the moment (many of the same institutions that were making a lot of money out of 'global-cooling' theory in the 70s and 80s) - and that money is coming from our pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 What I do not welcome is programmes such as last Thursdays from either side which basically are a complete discredit to independent documentary making which even if weighted one way or the other sgould at least be based on verifiable facts etc etc Honest question: do you feel the same way about Al Gore's film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Albert - you're the Man! Extrapolation - anything after the last empirical value is pure conjecture - as shown. Might as well bin the weather forcast then, it's a waste of time eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Albert - you're the Man! Extrapolation - anything after the last empirical value is pure conjecture - as shown. Utah01 - do you have a mortgage, a pension scheme - or if younger do your parents - do you have a career path. Its all conjecture you know: it might not happen, so why bother. Our attempts to understand our future are some of the most important things we do - the sophistication by which we are able to do it makes us unique. Educated guesses are important - the graphs I put up are our moost educated guesses of what might occur with our climate - are they so simple to dismiss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 What I do not welcome is programmes such as last Thursdays from either side which basically are a complete discredit to independent documentary making which even if weighted one way or the other sgould at least be based on verifiable facts etc etc Honest question: do you feel the same way about Al Gore's film? Only partially. Gore really didn't go into the science - he showed the CO2 concentations and past temperature records and said their interactions were very complicated - he knows about lags and ice ages etc. He then just talked about the consequences of temperature rises - he's accused of exaggerating sea level rises - but the levels he posted are in the IPCC limits - there just at the higher ends, but recent papers have questioned the IPCC as being too conservative. Plus he showed melting glaciers where the causes of the melting isn't climate change, but natural cycles. I'm not so fussed about this - if the science is right - as Al Gore accepted it is - these glaciers will melt in the future due to man made warming which will swamp the natural cycles currently observable - no natural cycles we know of can produce IN THE CURRENT ORBITAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS the temperature rises Global warming is going to produce. The rest of the movie was trying to embarrass Americans about their trully dreadful environmental and emission standards - the graphs comparing the US emission standards to China's is my favourite! So Gore accepted the science, didn't set himself up as having unique knowledge countrary to the scientific consesnus and warned us what may result. Channel 4's documentary didn't do this at all. It was far more selective and distorting. It made false claims about the current theories - ie going on about cooling 1940-1970 which the current models can explain - and then used a cosmic ray theory which is extremely speculative and not supported by the data to say every other idea is wrong. My beef here is with distortions of science. The political response to that science is much more complicated. Again the Channel 4 film was distorting - Gore praised the Chinese efforts, but Channel 4 ignored the fact that Kyoto and its successors exempt the developing world from the most stringent targets - allowing them to continue developing, and making the developed countries pay - if you only saw the documentary you'd think the opposite of the actual truth. Gore - worked with the science, but probably deliberately played it up to shock to try to make people think about the issue and become engaged in it. Channel 4 - lied and distorted about the science and played it up to make people dismiss the issue and not become engaged in it - its all a conspiracy and nothing we can do about. I know where I stand - Channel 4 has done a serious disservice to this debate and the science around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.